“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Now that is interesting, because Coney Barrett must have been one of the five.
She is not necessarily the one I would have expected to not play silly buggers.
Depressing to reflect though that four justices have so far forgotten their own views on the constitution that they declared it's OK for states to illegally obstruct the federal government in federal matters. I mean, do they want that as a precedent should the Orange Haired One get in again?
Yes but nonetheless hugely significant that even this court can get a majority for a liberal decision.
It is therefore not impossible it will vote 5-4 that Trump can be blocked from presidential ballots too when it gives its verdict on that next month
Now that is interesting, because Coney Barrett must have been one of the five.
She is not necessarily the one I would have expected to not play silly buggers.
Depressing to reflect though that four justices have so far forgotten their own views on the constitution that they declared it's OK for states to illegally obstruct the federal government in federal matters. I mean, do they want that as a precedent should the Orange Haired One get in again?
Yes but nonetheless hugely significant that even this court can get a majority for a liberal decision.
It is therefore not impossible it will vote 5-4 that Trump can be blocked from presidential ballots too when it gives its verdict on that next month
This was a fairly minor decision in a longer argument. It has much less significance. It’s also a much clearer situation. If, on a minor issue where the constitution seems pretty clear, the verdict is so close, it doesn’t give one much hope for a non-partisan decision on Trump.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
Am I the only one reading that and thinking “some is about right, some is not, but the context he wrote it in was to argue his case, so not even he thought it was a prediction”.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
Am I the only one reading that and thinking “some is about right, some is not, but the context he wrote it in was to argue his case, so not even he thought it was a prediction”.
Leaving the EU would create a structural deficit of £30bn that would be caused by the reduction in the size of our economy and the reduction in our trade with the EU. We would need to choose between higher taxes and lower spending or a mixture of both, he said.
Complete and utter nonsense. Our economy has not suffered any damage by leaving the EU. After a brief blip in the immediate aftermath of changing regulation there has been no material change in our exports or, sadly, our imports because we have retained free trade. The increase in unemployment forecast didn't happen, indeed employment continued to grow. The inflation that would arise from extra costs on our imports (regrettably) didn't happen.
I am an admirer of Osborne and think he was on the whole a good Chancellor. I have no doubt that, like Hannan, he genuinely believed what he was saying. It just wasn't true. Either of them.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
I used to be a big fan but Hannan and Carswell basically ran away when Brexit was won. Lost a lot of respect as a result.
Contrast to Gove who actually owned it, and put the graft in.
I know somebody (I forget who) always shoots me down when I say this, but I think Gove was, for want of a better word, serious in his politics.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
Am I the only one reading that and thinking “some is about right, some is not, but the context he wrote it in was to argue his case, so not even he thought it was a prediction”.
Except that is the headline. And had Brexit ended up like that, it would have been stable and coherent and probably popular.
But for that to happen, other countries had to decide to join us in leaving. Irexit would have solved a lot of problems, and other countries leaving would have changed the EU-non EU balance a lot.
That didn't happen though; most European nations have decided that, on balance EU membership is fine, and those that haven't have decided that EU orbiting is fine.
And the question that the UK has to answer- given that, what do we do- is one that we haven't really explored in context. I'm not expecting Starmer to want to touch it, but it ain't going away.
Big pang of nostalgia here. Idc if it seems like centrist dad cringe now - This Week was great. Self-deprecating but serious. Andrew Neil was a sharp & witty host; Portillo & Abbot were actually political opposites (unlike e.g. Stewart and Campbell) but genuinely amiable.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
There is a serious point to be made by Goodwin: he could point out that a large number of people who become British citizens end up in social housing, and seek to understand the reasons.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
There is a serious point to be made by Goodwin: he could point out that a large number of people who become British citizens end up in social housing, and seek to understand the reasons.
Are these the same citizen or immigrants as are boosting our economy? Getting subsidised housing and disproportionate benefits on the back of larger families? Something doesn't quite compute.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
Am I the only one reading that and thinking “some is about right, some is not, but the context he wrote it in was to argue his case, so not even he thought it was a prediction”.
Except that is the headline. And had Brexit ended up like that, it would have been stable and coherent and probably popular.
But for that to happen, other countries had to decide to join us in leaving. Irexit would have solved a lot of problems, and other countries leaving would have changed the EU-non EU balance a lot.
That didn't happen though; most European nations have decided that, on balance EU membership is fine, and those that haven't have decided that EU orbiting is fine.
And the question that the UK has to answer- given that, what do we do- is one that we haven't really explored in context. I'm not expecting Starmer to want to touch it, but it ain't going away.
I can tell from that post that you and I will never agree on this, because I think Brexit has worked out fine, and we’re doing ok, with nothing wrong that a few changes of Government and some fresh thinking won’t solve.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
I didn't even speak a word of English when I came over in 1976! Well, I was only four months old
Very Trivial Question about the storied history of the New Hampshire Presidential Primary:
Q - Which two candidates on the 1976 New Hampshire primary ballot were fraternity brothers while attending the same Ivy League university? clue - Along with two future SCOTUS and a future US Secretary of State.
SIXTY YEARS AGO - the NH PRIMARY SHOCKER
In 1964, three candidates filed for NH GOP primary were rightwing Arizona US Sen. Barry Goldwater, moderate NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, and Maine US Sen. Margaret Chase Smith the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress also first to seek major party POTUS nomination.
Both Barry and Rocky were well-known, charismatic and within GOP politics polarizing personalities. Each also brought substantial political baggage to New Hampshire; for Goldwater his shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric (hard to believe, eh?) plus his aversion to grassroots glad-handing; for Rockefeller, his recent divorce and remarriage to much younger woman (back in the Dark Ages BEFORE the Sexual Revolution).
Note that in the NH Democratic primary in 1964, just a few short months since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, his successor President Lyndon Johnson was NOT on the ballot, however he & his supporters were conducting a write-in campaign on his behalf.
Which gave a couple of GOP political gadflies with marketing savvy the idea, of launching a write-in campaign on behalf of Henry Cabot Lodge, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts and current US Ambassador to South Vietnam. Lodge did NOT give his consent from afar . . . but neither did he issue an iron-clad "Sherman statement" renouncing any interest in the presidency.
Using direct-mail on a shoe-string budget, the Lodge "campaign" quickly built an effective voter education & mobilization effort. At same time, supporters of Richard Nixon also got into the act; while on Democratic side a write-in effort for US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for Vice President, which greatly pissed off LBJ his erstwhile boss.
So what happened? Here are the results of the 1964 New Hampshire presidential primary
REPUBLICANS - total votes cast 92,853 Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 33,007 35.6% Barry Goldwater 20,692 22.3% Nelson Rockefeller 19,504 21.0% Richard Nixon (wi) 15,587 0.1679 Margaret Chase Smith 2,120 2.3% Harrold Stassen 1,373 1.5% William Scranton (wi) 105 0.1% other 465 0.5% > Stassen was perennial candidate, while Scranton was PA Gov and emerging POTUS prospect > Results were bad news for both Goldwater AND Rockefeller, confirming that many Republicans were both less-than-eager to see either one nominated, AND were willing to seek other options.
DEMOCRATS - total votes cast 30,777 Lyndon Johnson (wi) 29,317 95.3% Robert Kennedy (wi) 487 1.6% Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 280 0.9% Richard Nixon (wi) 232 0.8% Barry Goldwater (wi) 193 0.6% Nelson Rockefeller (wi) 109 0.4% other 159 0.5% > triumph for LBJ only slightly marred by writeins for RFK (Sr) AND also for major GOP challengers.
If anyone wants a good laugh, this prediction of next year in Brexit Britain, from Daniel Hannan in 2016 has been doing the rounds on Twitter/X/Muskovision
It's not funny, just a bit sad. Although I frequently criticised Hannan as Vorbis I have to concede that he genuinely thought that he understood things and that things would go in his desired direction. So the disparity between his prediction and the mundane reality is no source of joy to me.
Am I the only one reading that and thinking “some is about right, some is not, but the context he wrote it in was to argue his case, so not even he thought it was a prediction”.
Except that is the headline. And had Brexit ended up like that, it would have been stable and coherent and probably popular.
But for that to happen, other countries had to decide to join us in leaving. Irexit would have solved a lot of problems, and other countries leaving would have changed the EU-non EU balance a lot.
That didn't happen though; most European nations have decided that, on balance EU membership is fine, and those that haven't have decided that EU orbiting is fine.
And the question that the UK has to answer- given that, what do we do- is one that we haven't really explored in context. I'm not expecting Starmer to want to touch it, but it ain't going away.
I can tell from that post that you and I will never agree on this, because I think Brexit has worked out fine, and we’re doing ok, with nothing wrong that a few changes of Government and some fresh thinking won’t solve.
You obviously don’t.
So you think it will take 15-20 years to sort it out? It's already taken 6 years not to get the UK customs up and running.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
I’m anticipating DuraAce turning up shortly to berate PB “turning into some fucking Times wine club wankers’ chatroom”.
Why should he? He was an Officer RN and therefore self-evidently possesses Officer-Like Qualities, including Wardroom Grade Wine Appreciation.
He can tell the difference between “red” and “white”?
And green. He'd have to, if not to get his watchkeeping certificate (maybe not for a short service commission?), then certainly to know which way up an oncoming aircraft was.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Around 2017 I switched from seeing the right as the most dangerous threat to civilisation, to the left. Not so much the political 'far left' but the left in terms of all its cultural power which encompasses most of mainstream politics and elite culture.
When I think of the terrible politicians that have come to power, the likes of Trump, Orban, Erdoğan, Kaczyński, Milei, DeSantis… they’re not exactly centrists or social democrats, are they? I’m trying to think of an appropriate way of describing them all on the political spectrum…
The cultural power of the left is quite difficult to encapsulate, it cannot easily be epitomised by one politician or leader. But it is very prevalent. For me it was a singer on tour in 2019 who stood on stage glorifying an act of terrorism and the audience cheering along. I had been programmed by education and culture to assume that 'the danger is from the right' because of the proximity to fascism, but actually I realised that it is the progressives that are almost always the bigger fascists, but they get a free pass. I am sure it will carry on going like this for the rest of my life.
What singer was it and what act of terrorism? I've been to some dodgy gigs but I don't think I've ever seen one where people big up terrorists.
Wasn't the storming of the Bastille a terrorist act? I was somewhat disappointed when Thatcher accepted Mitterand's invitation to celebrate it in Paris in 1989 but I reasoned that, having read Chemistry at Oxford, she might be forgiven the odd historical lacuna.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
Is it possible that she might reflect that public ownership doesn't actually solve problems after all or is that too much of an intellectual leap for her?
For some reason I am reminded of a chap I knew, years ago, who had a thing about “destroying the BUPA shareholders, to save the NHS”
Again some reflection might be appropriate when an NHS free at the point of need still can't compete with BUPA charging an arm and a leg (other organs are also acceptable) for providing what is supposed to be the same service.
"BREAKING 🚨 Turkey’s parliament ratifies Sweden’s NATO membership"
Over to you, Viktor, you horrible little man.
The instant Sweden is in, the other NATO countries should expel Turkey. In the medium term, Ukraine will fill one strategic hole, and Greece will just have to step up in the Aegean.
Our prize from Greece for backing their wishes so thoroughly? They shut up about Lord Elgin’s marbles.
Didn't exactly take an expert prognosticator to predict that. A large chunk of MPs didn't want him, a smaller number ranted about him publicly or privately from day one, and plenty of the others thought he would stabilise things and give them a fighting shot at the next GE and he has failed, so people from all sorts of directions will be angry.
Very Trivial Question about the storied history of the New Hampshire Presidential Primary:
Q - Which two candidates on the 1976 New Hampshire primary ballot were fraternity brothers while attending the same Ivy League university? clue - Along with two future SCOTUS and a future US Secretary of State.
SIXTY YEARS AGO - the NH PRIMARY SHOCKER
In 1964, three candidates filed for NH GOP primary were rightwing Arizona US Sen. Barry Goldwater, moderate NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, and Maine US Sen. Margaret Chase Smith the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress also first to seek major party POTUS nomination.
Both Barry and Rocky were well-known, charismatic and within GOP politics polarizing personalities. Each also brought substantial political baggage to New Hampshire; for Goldwater his shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric (hard to believe, eh?) plus his aversion to grassroots glad-handing; for Rockefeller, his recent divorce and remarriage to much younger woman (back in the Dark Ages BEFORE the Sexual Revolution).
Note that in the NH Democratic primary in 1964, just a few short months since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, his successor President Lyndon Johnson was NOT on the ballot, however he & his supporters were conducting a write-in campaign on his behalf.
Which gave a couple of GOP political gadflies with marketing savvy the idea, of launching a write-in campaign on behalf of Henry Cabot Lodge, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts and current US Ambassador to South Vietnam. Lodge did NOT give his consent from afar . . . but neither did he issue an iron-clad "Sherman statement" renouncing any interest in the presidency.
Using direct-mail on a shoe-string budget, the Lodge "campaign" quickly built an effective voter education & mobilization effort. At same time, supporters of Richard Nixon also got into the act; while on Democratic side a write-in effort for US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for Vice President, which greatly pissed off LBJ his erstwhile boss.
So what happened? Here are the results of the 1964 New Hampshire presidential primary
REPUBLICANS - total votes cast 92,853 Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 33,007 35.6% Barry Goldwater 20,692 22.3% Nelson Rockefeller 19,504 21.0% Richard Nixon (wi) 15,587 0.1679 Margaret Chase Smith 2,120 2.3% Harrold Stassen 1,373 1.5% William Scranton (wi) 105 0.1% other 465 0.5% > Stassen was perennial candidate, while Scranton was PA Gov and emerging POTUS prospect > Results were bad news for both Goldwater AND Rockefeller, confirming that many Republicans were both less-than-eager to see either one nominated, AND were willing to seek other options.
DEMOCRATS - total votes cast 30,777 Lyndon Johnson (wi) 29,317 95.3% Robert Kennedy (wi) 487 1.6% Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 280 0.9% Richard Nixon (wi) 232 0.8% Barry Goldwater (wi) 193 0.6% Nelson Rockefeller (wi) 109 0.4% other 159 0.5% > triumph for LBJ only slightly marred by writeins for RFK (Sr) AND also for major GOP challengers.
A question for you Shants. How democratically secure are primary votes and results? Are they run by independent officials? Or are they rigged?
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
Forcing them back up chimneys would do wonders for the obesity crisis.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
Forcing them back up chimneys would do wonders for the obesity crisis.
Is it possible that she might reflect that public ownership doesn't actually solve problems after all or is that too much of an intellectual leap for her?
For some reason I am reminded of a chap I knew, years ago, who had a thing about “destroying the BUPA shareholders, to save the NHS”
Again some reflection might be appropriate when an NHS free at the point of need still can't compete with BUPA charging an arm and a leg (other organs are also acceptable) for providing what is supposed to be the same service.
BUPA has nothing even slightly resembling the capabilities of the NHS and its CEO would be the first to tell you that. Anything acute goes wrong and it’s ringing 999. Private healthcare in the UK fills a niche only, albeit a valuable one.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
You're Welsh? Dammit!
Oi! We're natives. It's the bloody English are the foreigners.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
I am sure the prospect of being Lord Blackford of Skye after he steps down as an MP at the next general election has nothing to do with this change of heart
"BREAKING 🚨 Turkey’s parliament ratifies Sweden’s NATO membership"
Over to you, Viktor, you horrible little man.
The instant Sweden is in, the other NATO countries should expel Turkey. In the medium term, Ukraine will fill one strategic hole, and Greece will just have to step up in the Aegean.
Our prize from Greece for backing their wishes so thoroughly? They shut up about Lord Elgin’s marbles.
I rather think it's the other way round - we've got very little else to contribute in the way of armament.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
I am sure the prospect of being Lord Blackford of Skye after he steps down as an MP at the next general election has nothing to do with this change of heart
Just when I was hoping we would be rid of the fat lazy useless twat.
Harry said senior figures. He surely didn't mean Nadine.
That's the Baroness Dorries you're talking about it. Oh wait, no it isn't.
In all seriousness the whole lot of them are very despondent and we already know Boris detests Rishi now, so I'm not really sure which people going public with criticism would be particularly notable.
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
Forcing them back up chimneys would do wonders for the obesity crisis.
Doesn't work, if you think about it ...
You're getting confused between chickens and eggs again.
Didn't exactly take an expert prognosticator to predict that. A large chunk of MPs didn't want him, a smaller number ranted about him publicly or privately from day one, and plenty of the others thought he would stabilise things and give them a fighting shot at the next GE and he has failed, so people from all sorts of directions will be angry.
Going to be fascinating to see what exactly they think they’ll achieve. It’s the brand that’s totally kaput
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
Forcing them back up chimneys would do wonders for the obesity crisis.
This is the kind of creative thinking we need in Number 10. You don’t need immigrant labour picking fruit if the children do it.
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
I am sure the prospect of being Lord Blackford of Skye after he steps down as an MP at the next general election has nothing to do with this change of heart
Warm house, comfy seat,good expenses, nothing too demanding, could be worse... 😃
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
On a lighter note the Oscar nominations are out . The pile of self-indulgent crap Oppenheimer appears .
Having fallen for all the hype I saw this . Far too long , tedious with severely annoying sound effects, disjointed and lacking in any real drama.
I so wanted to like the film but would rather have a tooth extraction than sit through this overhyped film again .
It was overlong and with a non-linear narrative which served no clear purpose other than to make it more artsy. It was...ok.
I feel like Nolan gets way too much leeway because his films look nice.
I thought it was terrific. Best film I have seen at the cinema for several years. Started well and got better and better. The last hour was great.
Not so sure that it would be as gripping on the TV so I haven't paid to watch it again on Sky but I will eventually. Really don't understand what some people have against it.
I have nothing against it, it just didn't grab me. Acting was good, production was excellent, it held my attention. But I'll probably never feel the urge to ever watch it again. I find Nolan to be technically excellent most of the time but not very engaging (Tenet aside, which was just crap).
Whereas something like Poor Things is a lesser movie (and goddamn that director has the worst soundtracks/scores I've ever heard in my life), and a bit try hard in its quirkiness, but provides more to talk about.
I didn't bother with Oppenheimer as I knew the plot, but have never really liked a Nolan movie. They always seem rather sterile somehow.
Greta quite rightly not getting Oscar for that script you agree?
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
And you didn't even have a skilled job lined up when you came over too. Granted, few children do.
It’s the British disease. Since we outlawed child labour, few British born kids do either, the lazy gits.
Forcing them back up chimneys would do wonders for the obesity crisis.
Doesn't work, if you think about it ...
You're getting confused between chickens and eggs again.
No. How can they get exercise up chimneys at all to get thin enough to even go up, pushed or not? I am not sure you realise just how narrow the chimneys were (or perhaps you do).
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
I am sure the prospect of being Lord Blackford of Skye after he steps down as an MP at the next general election has nothing to do with this change of heart
Warm house, comfy seat,good expenses, nothing too demanding, could be worse... 😃
I am sure Baroness Davidson is feeling rather smug though...
“Did you know that more than 50% of social housing is occupied by people who aren't British? It is not acceptable for any modern society to be relegating its own citizens in this way, from having access to basic services.”
In the clip, he’s specifically talking about London. However, the figure is not true, for London or anywhere. He conflates being born in Britain with being British, so someone like Boris Johnson is not British under Godwin’s definition. The lie is apparent by the way he talks about “its own citizens”: the vast majority of people in social housing are citizens, but UK law makes no distinction between a citizen born in the UK and one not born in the UK, between a citizen who was a citizen from birth or who acquired citizenship last week. Goodwin takes a statistic about people born overseas and conflates it with “its own citizens”.
Critics of Goodwin don’t do themselves any favours by pretending that someone who is British but born abroad is the same as a naturalised citizen who immigrated to the UK.
Hang on.
Surely all citizens are citizens.
Once a citizen, you can vote, be conscripted to fight, etc.
If he'd said "foreign born", that would have been ok. But he didn't.
Oh, well! I'm an illiterate foreign-born living in your country
You're Welsh? Dammit!
Oi! We're natives. It's the bloody English are the foreigners.
I knew that'd trigger someone.... ;-) Just be thankful I didn't mention The Cornish...
Comments
It is therefore not impossible it will vote 5-4 that Trump can be blocked from presidential ballots too when it gives its verdict on that next month
Ian Blackford: Why SNP should stop opposing House of Lords membership
The former leader in Westminster says peerages would increase the SNP’s influence over legislation and did not rule out accepting one
The SNP’s former leader at Westminster has suggested the party should drop its opposition to membership of the House of Lords to increase nationalist influence in London.
Ian Blackford is understood to be sympathetic to SNP members helping shape Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to overhaul the revising chamber from inside the Lords.
If the SNP were to begin accepting peerages, it would be a major break with 90 years of party policy...
...There will be no opportunity for the SNP to try to stymie the Rwanda bill as it makes its way through the Lords despite the party’s strong opposition to the proposals.
It is understood that there have been multiple occasions in recent years where senior SNP figures have had to approach “friendly” peers to put forward amendments to legislation on behalf of the nationalists.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ian-blackford-why-snp-should-stop-opposing-house-of-lords-membership-69l5dtpnm
Leaving the EU would create a structural deficit of £30bn that would be caused by the reduction in the size of our economy and the reduction in our trade with the EU. We would need to choose between higher taxes and lower spending or a mixture of both, he said.
Complete and utter nonsense. Our economy has not suffered any damage by leaving the EU. After a brief blip in the immediate aftermath of changing regulation there has been no material change in our exports or, sadly, our imports because we have retained free trade. The increase in unemployment forecast didn't happen, indeed employment continued to grow. The inflation that would arise from extra costs on our imports (regrettably) didn't happen.
I am an admirer of Osborne and think he was on the whole a good Chancellor. I have no doubt that, like Hannan, he genuinely believed what he was saying. It just wasn't true. Either of them.
"BREAKING 🚨 Turkey’s parliament ratifies Sweden’s NATO membership"
But for that to happen, other countries had to decide to join us in leaving. Irexit would have solved a lot of problems, and other countries leaving would have changed the EU-non EU balance a lot.
That didn't happen though; most European nations have decided that, on balance EU membership is fine, and those that haven't have decided that EU orbiting is fine.
And the question that the UK has to answer- given that, what do we do- is one that we haven't really explored in context. I'm not expecting Starmer to want to touch it, but it ain't going away.
Furbies are a security risk:
https://twitter.com/dakotathekat/status/1749567436142047361
Big pang of nostalgia here. Idc if it seems like centrist dad cringe now - This Week was great. Self-deprecating but serious. Andrew Neil was a sharp & witty host; Portillo & Abbot were actually political opposites (unlike e.g. Stewart and Campbell) but genuinely amiable.
https://x.com/iagos_monster/status/1749543718644748313?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
https://nitter.net/mac123_m/status/1749871130603647055#m
You obviously don’t.
https://x.com/yuanyi_z/status/1749784540921426192?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
🚨 No10 braced for leadership onslaught tonight.
Aides expecting incoming fire from senior party figures going public imminently 🚨
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1749888647946518539
Q - Which two candidates on the 1976 New Hampshire primary ballot were fraternity brothers while attending the same Ivy League university? clue - Along with two future SCOTUS and a future US Secretary of State.
SIXTY YEARS AGO - the NH PRIMARY SHOCKER
In 1964, three candidates filed for NH GOP primary were rightwing Arizona US Sen. Barry Goldwater, moderate NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, and Maine US Sen. Margaret Chase Smith the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress also first to seek major party POTUS nomination.
Both Barry and Rocky were well-known, charismatic and within GOP politics polarizing personalities. Each also brought substantial political baggage to New Hampshire; for Goldwater his shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric (hard to believe, eh?) plus his aversion to grassroots glad-handing; for Rockefeller, his recent divorce and remarriage to much younger woman (back in the Dark Ages BEFORE the Sexual Revolution).
Note that in the NH Democratic primary in 1964, just a few short months since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, his successor President Lyndon Johnson was NOT on the ballot, however he & his supporters were conducting a write-in campaign on his behalf.
Which gave a couple of GOP political gadflies with marketing savvy the idea, of launching a write-in campaign on behalf of Henry Cabot Lodge, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts and current US Ambassador to South Vietnam. Lodge did NOT give his consent from afar . . . but neither did he issue an iron-clad "Sherman statement" renouncing any interest in the presidency.
Using direct-mail on a shoe-string budget, the Lodge "campaign" quickly built an effective voter education & mobilization effort. At same time, supporters of Richard Nixon also got into the act; while on Democratic side a write-in effort for US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for Vice President, which greatly pissed off LBJ his erstwhile boss.
So what happened? Here are the results of the 1964 New Hampshire presidential primary
REPUBLICANS - total votes cast 92,853
Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 33,007 35.6%
Barry Goldwater 20,692 22.3%
Nelson Rockefeller 19,504 21.0%
Richard Nixon (wi) 15,587 0.1679
Margaret Chase Smith 2,120 2.3%
Harrold Stassen 1,373 1.5%
William Scranton (wi) 105 0.1%
other 465 0.5%
> Stassen was perennial candidate, while Scranton was PA Gov and emerging POTUS prospect
> Results were bad news for both Goldwater AND Rockefeller, confirming that many Republicans were both less-than-eager to see either one nominated, AND were willing to seek other options.
DEMOCRATS - total votes cast 30,777
Lyndon Johnson (wi) 29,317 95.3%
Robert Kennedy (wi) 487 1.6%
Henry Cabot Lodge (wi) 280 0.9%
Richard Nixon (wi) 232 0.8%
Barry Goldwater (wi) 193 0.6%
Nelson Rockefeller (wi) 109 0.4%
other 159 0.5%
> triumph for LBJ only slightly marred by writeins for RFK (Sr) AND also for major GOP challengers.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1749890067399667771
Our prize from Greece for backing their wishes so thoroughly? They shut up about Lord Elgin’s marbles.
I will legislate to ban France.
NEW THREAD
In all seriousness the whole lot of them are very despondent and we already know Boris detests Rishi now, so I'm not really sure which people going public with criticism would be particularly notable.
https://x.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1315725408478912514?s=20